3 ms·
Grass-fed beef is worse for the environment than feedlot beef, which is already pretty damned terrible. You need more cows to produce the same amount of beef, w
by jdietrich 7y ago
Grass-fed beef is worse for the environment than feedlot beef, which is already pretty damned terrible. You need more cows to produce the same amount of beef, which means more methane emissions. There isn't enough pasture land available to meet our demand for beef; cattle farming is already the primary cause of deforestation, which would only be exacerbated by a shift away from feedlots.
There is no ethical way to eat beef.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/stop-deforestation/whats-driving-deforestation https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/stop-deforestation/wha...
https://www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/project-files/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf https://www.fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/project-files/fc...
- nerdile 7y agoThe higher cost of grass-fed, free-range, etc. meat and poultry serves to internalize the externalities and disincentivizes frequent consumption. So no, it's not worse in and of itself, if it replaced feedlot farming, then we'd see prices spike, consumption plummet, and ideally we'd also see antibiotic and feed corn use sharply drop as well. We could all wish for such a world.